Kenwood Press

Serving the communities of Kenwood, Glen Ellen and Oakmont

email print
Guest Editor: 02/01/2019

Sonoma County should protect its residents by abiding by the State SRA Fire Safe Regulations

By Deborah A. Eppstein and Craig S. Harrison

Last November, the world watched with horror as residents of Paradise tried to escape from an oncoming wildfire on clogged roads, some so desperate that they abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot. Government can reduce the risk from wildfires. Our county government should properly enforce the state’s fire safe road regulations to stop new development in fire-prone areas and better enable emergency access and evacuation.

State regulations require minimum standards for developments in State Responsibility Areas (SRA, most of unincorporated Sonoma County) that are accessed by long, narrow and often dead-end roads. Standards include minimum 20-foot road widths, periodic turnouts, no one-lane roads unless under half a mile and connect with a two-lane road at both ends, and dead-end roads only if 20 feet wide and no more than one mile long.

Thirty years ago, in an instance of prescience, the California legislature became concerned about development in fire-prone locations. It directed the Forestry Department to issue regulations to require fire-safe roads for development. It did so in 1991. The county has chosen to exempt SRA regulations for roads built before 1992. This decision excludes most of rural Sonoma County from protection. Yet a 1993 California Attorney General opinion clearly says that state law pertains to all roads, not just those built after 1992.

Sonoma County’s approach is contrary to other California counties. Napa County applies SRA regulations to all roads. In San Diego County, it’s difficult to get a building or business permit at properties without two ways out. Our lawyer, Kevin Block, has informed the county that any permits issued in violation of the standards are invalid.

Our interest began with the location of commercial cannabis cultivation in unsuitable rural areas that impact residents. But the regulations govern all new development in SRAs, including new homes and wineries (but not rebuilding homes after the fires). We didn’t discover these regulations until cannabis program managers, eager to promote this industry and hungry for revenue, slammed door after door in our faces. They refused to allow us to establish exclusion zones even in fire-prone areas, failed to stop projects that don’t meet the ordinance’s criteria, and promoted projects that don’t meet zoning requirements or land-use policies.

The county has allowed inappropriate cultivation projects for two years under its amnesty (“penalty relief”) program on roads that do not even approach meeting SRA regulations. Among them are Cougar Lane, Los Alamos Road, Palmer Creek Road, Matanzas Creek Lane, and Bunnell (Grange) Road. All are dead-end roads over one mile long that are very narrow, some under 12 feet wide. The October 2017 fires burned through many of these areas and destroyed homes. This is not a theoretical issue. For many of these locations, the county is prepared to allow a third growing season without permits being issued.

PG&E has declared bankruptcy because it may be liable for damages caused by large destructive fires. But some of the blame also lies with a county government that allows development in remote areas with inadequate roads. PG&E is obligated to service those areas once the county allows development, but should the county allow development there at all?

Last month, retiring 30-year Cal Fire Chief Ken Pilmot suggested that California consider going beyond the current fire-safe regulations to ban new home construction in all areas prone to fires. Even if the county continues to disagree with the SRA regulations and excludes most pre-1992 roads from regulation, does issuing cannabis and other permits on unsafe roads make any sense? What can county leaders be thinking?

Deborah Eppstein PhD is a scientist and retired biotech entrepreneur who lives on Cougar Lane. Craig S. Harrison is a retired lawyer who lives in Bennett Valley.

Recently Published:

12/01/2020 - 10 points to consider regarding SDC Specific Plan
11/15/2020 - What is Glen Ellen?
10/15/2020 - Sonoma County defies wildfire public safety standards
10/01/2020 - OVA board should not propose a 25 percent quorum for amending bylaws
07/01/2020 - VOTMA – What we’re for, in good times and bad
03/01/2020 - Who are our homeless in Sonoma County and what are the county’s next steps?
03/01/2020 - Berger remodel now
02/15/2020 - Manage landscape now to be fire-smart and wildlife-friendly
02/01/2020 - Heart full of trails, head full of leave no trace
01/15/2020 - Who’s worse for wildfire mitigation, Gov. Newsom or the PUC’s Johnson?
12/15/2019 - Comcast can improve communications during disasters
12/15/2019 - The poster child for a dreadful cannabis project
11/15/2019 - To park rangers – don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good
11/15/2019 - Marijuana dispensary update
09/15/2019 - Dispensary doesn’t fit with Kenwood’s character
08/15/2019 - FAQs about PG&E Bankruptcy
08/01/2019 - Finding God in the everyday
05/15/2019 - Oakmont Golf cents and sensibility
04/01/2019 - The wrong way to plan for cannabis cultivation
03/15/2019 - Referendum needed on any proposed purchase of Oakmont Golf Club
03/01/2019 - Looking back and moving forward with SDC
02/01/2019 - Sonoma County should protect its residents by abiding by the State SRA Fire Safe Regulations
01/15/2019 - Oakmont East Recreation Center is a sound investment
12/15/2018 - OVA struggles to control escalating East Rec Center costs
12/01/2018 - GEFD – Setting the record straight